Community
General and Everything Else => The Games and other Sierra Adventure stuff => Topic started by: JRedant on January 02, 2017, 08:16:40 PM
-
Hello everyone.
It's been ages. Some inspiration has me going about crafting a game and I finished what could be considered the Beta version using a "wire frame" or "template" technique.
This Beta version was completed in the course of 2 days. Conceivably, this could have been done in 24 hours.
What this means is:
* Have the game and details already mapped out on paper
* map out the game in very minimal detail
* use the built in "Roger" ego character
The game is: enter the Castle, leave the castle.
I am making it available to everyone should any one decide to fill in their own details.
To-Do list:
- Sprites (for the adventurer and the various beasts in the game)
- Beasts (According to the original program, all rooms, except for the ending room, may have a beast that will attack you)
- Provisions (the original program has a 'provision menu' that will just appear if you press a key, I may do away with this)
- Light (One of the provisions is a 'light'. If you don't have it, seeing will be difficult. Also, it can be knocked out of your hand, if attacked)
- Food (revives health)
- sword / axe / amulet (to defeat the beasts)
- suit of armor (to defend against attacks)
What I also wanted to do was to prove that with the bare amount of details, you still can have a complete game.
Source code included.
Enjoy!
-
Good to see you back. Did you start this before the release of the new SCI Companion? Just curious about the choice of SCI0.
-
I was on for a short time when the new release was out.
The choice for SCI0 was on the basis of familiarity. In my current line of work, it's like working with ASP Classic even though the field has moved up to ASP.NET (on that note, we just started converting to .NET).
That said, I had wanted to release something.
-
Nothing wrong with going with SCI0, just it would be nice to see a few projects in SCI1.1.
-
Also would be nice if it were in the Sierra syntax :P
Should just be a couple of clicks to convert it... (and the editor has better features in Sierra syntax... e.g. autocomplete, code navigation, etc...)
-
I think I have my next weekend project then!
-
You know, if I end up doing SCI1, I might be tempted to try an AGI version of the exact same game.
But I'm not going to jump ahead!
As tempting as it sounds to convert with a few clicks, I think it will be more instructive for me to do an SCI1 version of this game right from scratch. I need to learn the syntax anyway.
-
You can follow the basic tutorial here:
http://scicompanion.com/Documentation/sci11_tutorial.html
-
I need to finish your tutorial, too. Just haven't had much time in the last few months.
-
I will be honest: the tutorial, as it stands, looks great and will definitely help.
---------------------techno babble---------------------
Is there an API available?
I had spent two years as a Database designer and I've seen a couple of well designed APIs for jQuery (http://api.jquery.com/) and jqxWidgets (http://www.jqwidgets.com/jquery-widgets-documentation/) which had helped me become more versed in my C#/javascript ASP.NET programs.
----the stuff from above said again, in plain English----
Is there an accompanying SCI1 reference guide?
--------------------------------------------------------
-
SCI1 is basically the same as SCI11 but without scalers and I think messages, maybe some other, minor stuff too. Which does mean you can't add simple responses quite so trivially, I guess.
Oh and polygons I think.
-
Is there an accompanying SCI1 reference guide?
I assume you mean SCI1.1. It's all there. All the kernels and class library are documented.
-
Just call me Rip Van Winkle. ;D
Yes I do mean SCI1.1!
-
Aw, fuckstacks.
-
Aw, fuckstacks.
How so? There is little point in targeting SCI1 when we can target SCI1.1 instead.
-
There is also the official documentation. http://sciwiki.sierrahelp.com//index.php?title=Official_SCI_Documentation
-
How so?
I assumed wrong.
-
Aw, fuckstacks.
How so? There is little point in targeting SCI1 when we can target SCI1.1 instead.
There is little point in targeting SCI when we can target AGS instead.
-
Woo sarcasm!
-
I think Duke4 is rubbing off on me a little too much...
-
Except there's no template game for SCI1, so the AGS/SCI vs SCI1.1/SCI1 comparison doesn't really apply :P
-
The fact that there is no template game is precisely why it applies. There was no SCI1.1 template game 3 years ago either. :P
I know it's unrealistic, just being facetious and pointing out the fallacy in saying there's no point in using something older than what's available.
-
I know it's unrealistic, just being facetious and pointing out the fallacy in saying there's no point in using something older than what's available.
Not just something older, but something which is equivalent in most ways, except for the missing features...?
-
You talking about SCI vs AGS or SCI1 vs SCI1.1? If it's the latter, well,....no cursor resources? lol I know I have no argument worthy of convincing anybody, I just wish is all. Please don't waste your time working on something only I would ever use...maybe. :)
-
I'll just make it easy for everyone:
I'm using this (http://scicompanion.com/Downloads/SCICompanion.zip). Cool?
Oki-doke! Now that I'm looking at this version, and the tutorials, I have the exact same feeling that I had when looking at Visual Studio: "Time to get my hands dirty"
One thing I do like is Sierra Script is not all that different than SCI Script.
Let's have a look and see how far I can get in wireframing the Werewolves and Wanderer game using this version.
-
One thing I do like is Sierra Script is not all that different than SCI Script.
*SCI Studio Script (or just Studio Script).
Yeah, they're pretty similar - SCI Studio Script was invented by Brian based on the limited knowledge of the original syntax at the time.
Sierra Script is a nearly faithful reproduction of the original syntax (how the "linking" is done with other script files is different, and other small things like methods don't need to be declared before their implementation).
The compiler is a lot more strict with Sierra syntax than it is with SCI Studio syntax, since it doesn't need to maintain compatibility with SCI Studio. This is a good thing, since it helps prevent bugs.
-
What I seem to notice is comparing SCI Studio Script and Sierra Script is a lot like comparing VB and C#.
If we were a bigger community, I would like to think that we would like to keep and develop both flavors, as it were.
-
What I seem to notice is comparing SCI Studio Script and Sierra Script is a lot like comparing VB and C#.
As a C# nut, so very much agreed.
-
I look at Studio Script as an unwieldy yet necessary evil for starting out, but now that we have something more faithful and more authentic, it's a hurdle that we have now passed and no longer need to be limited by. Also, less bugs and chance of errors for the same reason as Troflip said. Having two languages would just be unnecessary complicating things. People skilled in one language would have trouble communicating in another, not to mention people with problems in one language wouldn't have any in the other. There are no advantages to using Studio Script over Sierra Script, other than someone being used to it. But in this case, I think it's best not to be stuck in the past and go with the more accurate and functional method. My two cents.
-
I agree with Musically. The differences between Sierra Script and Studio Script aren't huge, but it is worth an effort to learn Sierra Script. It's worth it, in the end.
-
Okay, I have a question:
In SCI0, whenever Ego walks to the edge of the screen, Ego would be "sent" to another room:
(assume rm001.sc, Pic.001, rm002.sc and Pic.002 exists)
(properties
picture scriptNumber
// Set up the rooms to go to/come from here
north 0
east 0
south 2
west 0
)
In SCI1.1, I had tried to implement the same thing, but I can't seem to get it to work:
(assume rm110.sc, Pic.110, rm111.sc and Pic.111 exists)
(properties
picture 110
south 111
style (| dpANIMATION_BLACKOUT dpOPEN_FADEPALETTE)
horizon 50
vanishingX 130
vanishingY 50
noun N_ROOM
)
This leads to two questions, and this is on my learning curve:
1. Are we no longer able to do this on SCI1.1? (if so, what am I missing?)
2. If we can't, does that mean we will need to use Control areas to navigate rooms?
-
It should still work, but it's more finicky because you usually have polygons blocking room edges (so the ego will bump into that before going off screen).
I use edge hits in my "SCI Quest" game: http://scicompanion.com/download/ and they work.
It should work as long as the polygon boundary is right up along the edge of the screen (or you have no polygons at all), and the value for gEdgeHitDistance is a reasonable value in Main.sc (i.e. not 0).
You should be able to see if Ego:edgeHit ends up getting set in the Ego:doit method by sticking some DebugPrints in Ego:doit
( http://scicompanion.com/Documentation/debugging.html ... looks like the sample code in there is still using Studio syntax, oops )